TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (4) TMI 954
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....992-93 and 1993-94, he was entitled to both salary and commission of profits. The assessing authority found that he has drawn advances both of salary and commission on profits and taxed them as deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Income-tax Act. The Tribunal found that the assessee was a salaried employee of the company. The salary due to him in the relevant years, namely, Rs. 5,000 in the assessment year 1992-93 and Rs. 7,700 in the year 1993-94 was fixed and deposited in his account. The commission on profits received by him in the respective years, against in advance are to be treated as deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Act. The advance of Rs. 1,50,000 in the assessment year 1992-93 and Rs. 1,61,250 in the assessme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of 2003 "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the amount of Rs.1,61,250 less the amount of advance against salary (i.e. Rs.1,61,250 - Rs. 92,400 = Rs. 68,850) withdrawn by the appellant from M/s. Shyam Biri Works P. Ltd. during the previous year 1992-93 (assessment year 1993-94) against the income accruing to him on account of commission on profit during the said year is liable to be taxed as 'deemed dividend' under section 2(22)(e) of the Income-tax Act on the ground that the right to receive commission on profit arises only when the accounts are settled at the end of the financial year ?" Substantial question of law in Income-tax Appeal No. 126 of 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., which will fall within the meaning of deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Act. 7. We find that both these cases relied upon by the petitioner were in respect of trade advances, which could not be treated as deemed dividend. 8.In the present case, the advances drawn by the assessee were commission on profit from his account, which were not due to him before the accounts were settled, and which the assessee claimed to be his own income. 9. We do not find any force in the argument that the directions of the Tribunal will amount to double taxation inasmuch as no such point was taken or argued by the petitioner before any of the authorities. 10. Shri A. N. Mahajan, learned counsel for the Department sub....